Republicans seem not to understand how much Obamacare has changed the argument about raising the Medicare eligibility age. Under Obamacare, most people of modest income will be eligible for health insurance subsidized by the federal government, irrespective of age. There are probably some savings involved in keeping people on Obamacare longer before transitioning to Medicare. But probably not enough to be worth fighting that political battle now.

* Conventional and universal wisdom is that if the fiscal cliff negotiations end ugly, Republicans will get most of the political blame.

Initially, I’m sure that will be the case. As president, Barack Obama has the bigger microphone and he has successfully cast the issue as whether taxes on the rich should be increased rather than the extent to which federal spending needs to be constrained.

But I don’t think that’s looking far enough down the road. At election time, voters have a strong tendency to hold the party that holds the White House accountable for the condition of the country. If the economy is still sluggish and the finances of the federal government still a mess, I’m not sure voters will take it out on Republicans in the 2014 election. There’s an expectation that the guy in the White House ought to be able to fix things, irrespective of what kind of a political hand he’s been dealt.

Democrats shouldn’t be so sure they’ll still be holding all the political cards when it matters – when people step into the voting booth in 2014.

* House Speaker John Boehner effectively demoting Arizona Congressman David Schweikert and three other fiscal conservatives by booting them off plum committees was at least a small mistake. And it may turn out to be a big mistake.

The discipline of Schweikert is particularly puzzling. There were two big fiscal issues for Republicans last session: the Ryan budget and the debt ceiling deal Boehner negotiated with Obama. The other three congressmen sent to time-out voted against both. Schweikert voted against the debt ceiling deal, but for the Ryan budget.

Schweikert and his fellow delinquents were hardly alone in voting against the debt-ceiling deal. In fact, 66 House Republicans said no. All the other Arizona Republican members of the House at the time, excepting only Paul Gosar, voted the same ways as Schweikert.

Given that it was that deal that put Republicans in the fiscal cliff political pickle they are now trying to squirm out of, it’s hard to say the naysayers were wrong and Boehner was right.

At some point during the fiscal cliff issue, Boehner is likely to face a rebellion of some size from the more staunchly fiscal conservative members of his caucus. His petty retaliation against Schweikert and others makes it likely to be bigger rather than smaller.

* Arizona Democrats say one of their top priorities is to restore coverage to childless adults under the state’s Medicaid program. There is something big and important they could be doing right now to make that more likely, but they aren’t.

Under Obamacare, the federal government offers to pick up 85 percent of the cost of serving childless adults up to 100 percent of the federal poverty level, if the state agrees to expand coverage to 133 percent. The federal government would initially pay all the costs of covering those between 100 percent and 133 percent of the FPL. The current reimbursement rate in Arizona is 66 percent.

Arizona is highly unlikely to go all the way to 133 percent, since those between 100 percent and 133 percent are eligible for federal subsidies through an insurance exchange. Why run the risk of ultimately getting stuck with the tab when there’s another option for this segment of the population to get coverage?

Gov. Jan Brewer, however, seems inclined to restore coverage for childless adults up to 100 percent of the FPL, or to at least take a major step in that direction. Whether that’s affordable, however, depends on whether the federal government will reimburse at the 85 percent rate if the state doesn’t go all the way on expanding eligibility.

According to legislative budget staff, restoring eligibility to 100 percent of the poverty level would cost $135 million at the higher reimbursement rate, but $478 million at the lower rate. Given the state’s budget situation, the former is thinkable, the latter is just too expensive.

Brewer has asked the Obama administration for the higher reimbursement rate for an increase in eligibility that falls short of the 133 percent. But our governor of the famous finger-wag is not exactly the state’s most persuasive advocate to the administration.

A very public show of support for the higher reimbursement rate for a partial expansion of eligibility by the Democratic members of Arizona’s congressional delegation and state Legislature might be influential. But it’s not happening.

I’ve been having irresponsible thoughts. Or at least I’ve been thinking more favorably about something I have previously denounced as irresponsible: not increasing the federal debt limit.

There is no good end in sight for the non-negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff. And the impasse goes far deeper than the question that preoccupies the public discussion about whether to increase the tax rates on the affluent.

The tax rate issue is a matter of firmly-held principle and important political symbology on both sides. But it’s not the heart of the impasse.

According to President Obama’s own budget staff, increasing the top two rates to 36 percent and 39.6 percent would only raise $442 billion over ten years, or only about a fifth of the $1.6 trillion in tax increases Obama is demanding.

Obama’s own budget actually proposes to raise significantly more -- $750 billion – through the approach proposed by Republicans in the non-negotiations: limiting the deductions of the affluent. In addition to reinstating the limits that existed prior to the Bush tax cuts, Obama’s budget proposed capping the value of all itemized deductions for the top-two tax rates at 28 percent.

So, as politically important as the rate issue is, resolving it would only reveal an even bigger – and probably irreconcilable – divide. What Obama is really trying to do is to force Republicans to finance – through higher taxes and increased borrowing – the size of the federal government Obama thinks appropriate.

And Obama likes his government supersized. Obama’s budget proposes locking in federal spending at 23 percent of Gross Domestic Product, an unprecedented level since the end of World War II. Obama has proposed no constraints that would bring spending below that level and consistently dismisses as non-starters any such proposals by others.

Obama likes to cite the Clinton economy in support of his positions. But federal spending as a percentage of GDP was just 18 percent at the end of Bill Clinton’s tenure. The difference between Obama-level spending and Clinton-level spending is more than $700 billion a year.

The Simpson-Bowles debt commission recommended that federal spending be brought down to 21 percent of GDP. The difference between Obama-level spending and Simpson-Bowles level spending is around $300 billion a year.

Republicans in the House undoubtedly won’t, and shouldn’t, agree to finance Obama-level spending. After all, they were elected in 2010 to put a brake on Obama’s spending and were returned to power this election.

But where and when to draw the line is substantively and politically dicey. Obama clearly intends to push Republicans to the edge of every cliff – the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and sequestration; maxing out the debt limit – counting on them to blink at the end.

At no point will Republicans have the upper hand politically. But blink each time, and they end up financing Obama-level spending.

So, perhaps it’s time to think about the unthinkable: not increasing the debt limit.

This does not have to mean default. Existing debt can be rolled over under the current limit. Servicing the debt only costs around $250 billion a year, which could be made a priority.

What it would mean is that ongoing spending would have to be on a pay-as-you-go basis. Spending would have to be reduced from $3.6 trillion to around $2.8 trillion.

That’s a huge cut. But spending as a percentage of GDP would be close to the 18 percent it was under Clinton. In fact, if the Clinton spending discipline of limiting growth in outlays to around 3 percent a year had been maintained during the profligate presidencies of George W. Bush and Obama, that’s about what the size of the federal budget would be today.

Not increasing the debt ceiling would be shock therapy for the country, with uncertain economic and political ramifications. A more gradual decline in spending as a percentage of GDP, such as proposed in Paul Ryan’s budget or by the Simpson-Bowles commission, would be infinitely preferable and more responsible.

But if the only choices are financing Obama-level spending or shock therapy, then at least some thought has to be given to shock therapy.

I believe that Arizona would be better off with a state-administered health insurance exchange under Obamacare. However, I can’t fault Gov. Jan Brewer for deciding not to pursue one. It would have precipitated a bloody political battle with legislative leaders for little known and quantifiable gain.

Under Obamacare, each state was to set up an electronic marketplace through which individuals could purchase insurance eligible for federal subsidies. Obamacare provides for such subsidies up to about $90,000 of household income.

If a state doesn’t set up an exchange, the law provides for the federal government to do it instead.

Conservative legislators became convinced that Arizona could largely opt out of Obamacare by not setting up a state-administered exchange.

Obamacare, as written, provides subsidies through state-administered exchanges. The law doesn’t explicitly say that the subsidies are also available through federally-administered exchanges. So, some conservative legal experts are saying that they aren’t.

The mandate that employers provide health insurance or pay a fine is triggered by having employees eligible for the subsidies. So, goes the argument, no state-administered exchange, no subsidies, no employer mandate.

If this legal interpretation held, the scope of the individual mandate under Obamacare would also be sharply reduced if the state opted not to establish an exchange. There is an exemption to the mandate if the cost of insurance exceeds a certain percentage of income. Obviously, if subsidies aren’t available, more people would be exempted based upon that provision.

Conservative legislators were sold this story about being able to largely opt out of Obamacare by not establishing a state-administered exchange by reputable conservative organizations, such as Americans for Prosperity and the Goldwater Institute. I doubt, however, that the legal interpretation undergirding it will prevail.

An alternative reasonable interpretation is that, when the federal government sets up an exchange, the federally-administered exchange steps into the shoes of a state-administered exchange for all other purposes of Obamacare, including being a delivery mechanism for the subsidies.

Indeed, this is the interpretation the Internal Revenue Service has used in issuing regulations making the subsidies equally available in state and federally administered exchanges.

For a court to overturn the IRS regulation, it would have to proactively divide the nation into subsidy haves and have nots. I think judges will be highly reluctant to do that.

And if the nation is to be divided into subsidy haves and have nots, is it really fair to Arizonans of modest incomes without access to employer-provided health insurance for the Legislature to dump them into the have-not category?

My guess is that, at the end of the day, Arizona will be fully part of Obamacare – subsidies and mandates – with a federally-administered exchange.

Nevertheless, conservative Republican legislators fervently believe in the opt-out story. So, if Brewer had decided to ask for legislative approval of a state-administered exchange, it would have been a tough and ugly intra-party battle, with conservative organizations and activists aligned vehemently against her.

And to gain what?

Those who have to operate through the exchanges – insurance companies and health care providers – understandably would prefer to deal with local regulators rather than federal ones.

The launch of Obamacare, however, may be very rocky. In less than a year, there are supposed to be 50 fully operational exchanges through which millions of people can purchase health insurance and determine eligibility for subsidies. To put it mildly, the federal government doesn’t seem to be on a trajectory for that to happen smoothly or on time.

If Obamacare crashes and burns upon launch, states that administer the exchanges stand to share the blame.

A big fight with legislative Republicans to be a potential fall guy if Obamacare has a shaky start? It’s understandable that Brewer decided to pass.

I hope Democrats in the U.S. Senate go ahead and rein in the filibuster. Yes, it’s rank hypocrisy, since they sanctimoniously opposed such reforms while in the minority. But the Constitution specifies the instances in which the framers thought an extraordinary majority should be required – impeachment, ratifying treaties, proposing constitutional amendments. They never meant for an extraordinary majority to be necessary to pass ordinary legislation or make confirmations.

* At first, I thought Gov. Jan Brewer was just funning with her talk about possibly running again. But apparently, she is at least semi-serious.

That’s unfortunate. The legal advice she’s getting is delusional.

The state Constitution clearly limits a governor from serving more than two consecutive terms including “any part of a term served.”

At the time voters enacted this provision, the state had gone through two transitions in which the secretary of state succeeded to the office of governor and served a partial term as Brewer has done – Wes Bolin replacing Raul Castro and Rose Mofford replacing Evan Mecham.

According to Brewer’s former general counsel, Joseph Kanefield, voters didn’t have these recent experiences with partial terms in mind when term limits were adopted in 1992. Instead, they had various stratagems in mind that no one had ever thought about until Kanefield thunk them up to offer a rationale for Brewer to run again.

According to Kanefield, rather than the partial terms voters had recently witnessed, they were thinking about a devious governor resigning shortly before the end of his second term to avoid the limitation. Or, if a secretary of state the devious governor didn’t like won election to succeed him, resigning shortly before the end of his term so the unliked successor would effectively have only one term as governor.

There’s utterly nothing in the historical record to support Kanefield’s devious governor interpretative theory. The plain language of the Constitution and the historical context in which the term limit was adopted clearly indicate that Brewer is done.

If Brewer clings to the devious governor theory, it will be unpleasant and messy. For one thing, it isn’t clear when adjudicating Brewer’s ability to run again would be ripe. Would it be when she files the paperwork to be a candidate? When she files the nominating petitions to get on the ballot? Or only if she actually gets elected and tries to continue in office?

Arizona happens to have a pretty good crop of candidates eyeballing the governor’s race in 2014, on both sides of the aisle. Brewer’s flirtation with running for a third term damages Republican chances. The longer she flirts, the less traction a possible Republican successor can get. And if she actually runs, what a mess, legally and politically.

* Both Democrats and Republicans say that Democrats did better this election because of the new lines drawn by the redistricting commission. Despite the consensus, there’s little evidence to support the contention.

According to Democrats, they did better in congressional races because the most recent commission gave more priority to creating competitive districts. The commission that drew the old lines should sue for slander.

Under the old lines, Arizona’s congressional delegation went from 6-2 Republican in 2002, to a 4-4 split in 2006, to 5-3 Democratic in 2008, to 5-3 Republican in 2010. At least one congressional seat traded party hands in every election held under the old lines except one (2004). It doesn’t get much more competitive than that.

Republicans claim that the new congressional districts are stacked in favor of Democrats. But it is premature to conclude that based upon one election in a presidential year. The Republican turnout advantage is magnified in off-presidential years. If the Ron Barber-Martha McSally race in Southern Arizona had been decided by the off-presidential year electorate, McSally would have won.

Crediting the redistricting commission with declining Republican numbers in the Legislature requires an acute case of historical amnesia.

Republican numbers did decline, but because Republicans grossly overachieved in 2010.

Republicans have 17 of 30 state Senate seats. That’s the same number they had under the old lines in 2002 and 2006.

Republicans have 36 of 60 state House seats. That’s more than they had under the old lines in both 2006 (33) and 2008 (35).

* Those criticizing Arizona U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl’s proposal to give legal status to some of those brought to this country illegally while children for not going far enough apparently have forgotten that legislation still has to pass the House. And that the House is still dominated by Republicans in safe districts who don’t have to fear the Latino vote.

Moreover, Kyl’s proposal has been mischaracterized. It doesn’t deny these young adults a pathway to citizenship. In fact, it provides one. It just doesn’t provide a quicker or special one. They would have to apply for a green card, just like anyone else. After which, they could apply for citizenship.

In the meantime, they would have legal status to live, work and study in the United States, which they don’t have now.

I’d favor a much more generous amnesty for young adults brought here illegally as children. But Kyl’s approach may offer a quicker and surer way of getting them out of their current legal limbo.

Join thousands of azcentral.com fans on Facebook and get the day's most popular and talked-about Valley news, sports, entertainment and more - right in your newsfeed. You'll see what others are saying about the hot topics of the day.